4.7 Review

Review article: antibiotics and probiotics in inflammatory bowel disease

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 75-78

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.02051.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment with antibiotics in inflammatory bowel disease has a long tradition and is widely used. The indications for antibiotic therapy are wide ranging, from specific situations such as abscesses or fistulae. to patients with severe disease (as an unspecific 'protective' measure), and to address the hypothesis that the enteric flora as a whole, or specific microorganisms such as mycobacteria, are involved in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. The best-studied single antibiotic compound is metronidazole. However, overall, the scientific basis for the use of antibiotics is limited, which may reflect a lack of interest from sponsors within the pharmaceutical industry. Despite this weak evidence base, antibiotics are a globally established therapeutic tool in inflammatory bowel disease. Growing evidence from human and animal studies points towards a pivotal pathogenetic role of intestinal bacteria in inflammatory bowel disease. In view of these experimental findings, clinical trials have been undertaken to elucidate the therapeutic effects of probiotics in inflammatory bowel disease. Probiotics are viable nonpathogenic microorganisms which confer health benefits to the host by improving the microbial balance of the indigenous microflora. So far, of the many candidates, one specific strain (Escherichia coli Nissle 1917) and a mixture of eight different bacteria have demonstrated convincing therapeutic efficacy in controlled studies. Maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis and prevention therapy, as well as the treatment of pouchitis, have emerged as areas in which problotic therapy offers a valid therapeutic alternative to current treatments. Further investigations may detect additional clinically effective probiotics and other clinical indications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据